muni wrote:This is my last post. Temporary peace will be restored, everlasting I wish all.

It better NOT be. You quit posting and I will send a thousand devas to kick your butt. I have noticed a marked change in your postings lately and I am nursing a suspicion that you have attained an insight of some kind. This needs to develop! Let it live!

Do you have a mouse in your pocket or have "others" given you authority to speak for them?

If you mean you are skeptical or some such, you are making the statement not "others", and feel free to state it.If you claim authority to speak for others I say.....show the proof or else speak for yourself.

This would be a accurate representation if one wanted to make that statement correctly...

but accept that others may be skeptical towards your stereotype postings. Thusly stated it may be a correctly worded statement. Are presumes what is not known to be. May allows for the possibility of its existance in a more than singular context but does not strictly state that multiple references suchly are known to exist.To have uncorrectly worded statements is normally no big deal. When one is accusing another of sterotype postings or things of that nature, what is stated, must be corrrectly stated. By my take I personally doubt other view all M's posts are sterotypical postings. They may or may not be. Your statement initially infers others certainly do, which is not proven, and thusly implies a consensus view when none may be present. It may(or may not) be a singular view only. When one is implying a consensus view of negative origin applies, in a public forum where many have participated, this can wrongfully disincourage such targeted peoples from participating on that basis. If such is established(such concensus opinion)....I say go for it, sure, state it. That has absolutely not been established in this issue. If you state it has I say...prove it. If not edit your comment.

Sorry for using the English language not as skillful as you want it to be used. Of course in this context when saying "others" I am speaking from my own individual perspective. I am not claiming that others are actually sharing my scepticism as to his postings. How could they? His postings are very nice to read and the instructions contained appear very attractive, easy and without effort. Don't we like everything that announces "achievement without effort"? Of course we do!Actually I believe that scepticisms towards such kind of postings is usually not liked by many and that such kind of instructions are generally more attractive and - if one firmly believes in them - one may be calmed, self-satisfied, peacefully abiding for oneself, perhaps experience some sort of bliss every now and then, Bliss we may also experience when reading nice poems or seeing nice films that seem to place us outside of this disturbing world. There is nothing bad about bliss, don't get me wrong.It is perfectly natural that we are drawn towards higher blissful states. Humans are always attracted to higher status.Do not take my scepticism as offense. Each of us may voice agreement, scepticism ... belief or doubt ...If one chooses to exclusively publish a special sort of texts only then divergent views and/or scepticism may be voiced publicly. Whether the sort of texts that I am referring to have been meant by their authors to be published in this way is another issue.

This is the vajrayana section. I thought that vajrayana is considered "secret". Seems to be an inherent contradiction to have a vajrayana section in a public forum. But I don't know. I consider everything published openly to be subject to dialectical perspectives also. Because if it were Vajrayana then it would be explicitely non-dialectical, but then it would not be published openly.

I take the responsibility for my misunderstandings and applying language not skillfully. My intention is not to be offensive. I am just applying freedom of speech. My perspectives may be outrightly rejected by others. No problem with that.

Your perspectives are not the problem. When you are speaking of others in such a fashion, you must be correct in the manner in which it is stated, otherwise unintended interpretive meaning is possible. Since such communication speaks of the personal, it becomes important.

A statement such as this is insignificant in its wrongness as it is not a personal observation on a individual..."Sorry for using the English language not as skillful as you want it to be used", but it serves as example.

The correct statement should be....Sorry for using the English language in a manner which is not as skillful as you want it to be usedor....Sorry for using the English language not as skillfully as you want it to be used.

Stating what you are stateing initially, is incorrect gramatically. We use certain sentence structure to effectively convey communication. Freedom of speech has nothing, under the sun, to do with expressing things in a incorrect manner if you want to communicate effectively.

On internet boards it is mostly inconsequential to write in not correct fashions. Speaking about others on internet boards however may be of consequence and thusly it is important to speak or write correctly.

As to what you actually state; I could care less, it is not my concern.

"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.

TMingyur wrote: easy and without effort. Don't we like everything that announces "achievement without effort"? Of course we do!Actually I believe that scepticisms towards such kind of postings is usually not liked by many and that such kind of instructions are generally more attractive and - if one firmly believes in them - one may be calmed, self-satisfied, peacefully abiding for oneself, perhaps experience some sort of bliss every now and then, Bliss we may also experience when reading nice poems or seeing nice films that seem to place us outside of this disturbing world. There is nothing bad about bliss.

Correction. To be in higher states one can climb on a ladder. Fabricated mental states in which is the bliss experience, need no clinging. No need for, 'just nature'. Let be.

TMingyur wrote:"Abandon desire for bliss, for this harms the mind."Take all the sufferings of other beings and give all your happiness.

Actually all this "vajrayana" sayings about "bliss" makes me feel sick. I feel that the small vehicle is more honest in this regard.

But sometimes feeling sick is good because it's a sign that you are purifying some of the bad karmas you accumulated in your past. Feeling sick is often part of doing the Nyungne fasting meditation retreats, for example.

I suppose it would also be possible to take the Zen approach and ask oneself, "Who is it that feels sick now?"

TMingyur wrote:"Abandon desire for bliss, for this harms the mind."Take all the sufferings of other beings and give all your happiness.

Actually all this "vajrayana" sayings about "bliss" makes me feel sick. I feel that the small vehicle is more honest in this regard.

But sometimes feeling sick is good because it's a sign that you are purifying some of the bad karmas you accumulated in your past. Feeling sick is often part of doing the Nyungne fasting meditation retreats, for example.

Also the Vajrasattva practice, that's a wonderful way to feel horrible and burn up some serious karma

I'm kind of confused as to what's the problem with bliss?

Even the Buddha taught that Nirvana was blissful. It's all over the place

i am going to comment on the technical aspects of these issues, nor into discussion of terms I personally cannot account for, but from a simple laypersons view and a uneducated one at that...

Bliss could be abandoned, but firstly when it presents, as it will from meditational pursuits, it must not be attached to. It may come and go as any other feeling. Maybe it remains, maybe not....it is not significant as are not significant happiness or sad states as well. States they are; not reality or the real. We create circumstance through meditation. Meditation elicits bliss. However does bliss then have any concrete identity as a solid thing we can obtain....no. It remains consequence and as such it has no intrinsic reality. So bliss is seemingly no end all or final product.

Emptiness..a conceptual view of emptiness as with all concepts must be abandoned. Emptiness however pervades our very being and the reality of everything we perceive as exterior. It is therefor a understanding and not a conceptual view. It is part of our awareness. Awareness/emptiness...one is the back side of the other seemingly.

That is but my personal view. I can however point to similiar things versed in Buddhism, that verse such things. And not to state one school of Buddhism is better than any other.

If however you think you must abandon such things by force of will and are aiming for a blissful nirvanic state to reside in forever....that's fine as well.I personally will have none of that, but that's a personal decision, not better nor worse than any other.

This for your consideration, I can explain if requested. But the terms and such....don't know a one, as they are not my concern or aim. So I am no help there.

As to fasting, I'd guess there are many ways of doing this thing. I think there may be some popular book out now on this thing as well, and recently some popular retreats involving it. I personally have utilized fast. I would in retreat however tell peoples I am on a diet, so as not to confuse them. It is a lower tantric method in some schools, and if you fast as spiritual means I suspect some prior to the recent publicity of this thing consider you quite dim. Considered lower tantra, I have found this uneducated layperson to benefit greatly from its employment, though I claim no accomplisment.

I have never once however gotten sick though I have fasted on only water for many days at times. I watch the hunger, what it is that feels the hunger, and have attempted to find any reality whatsoever to this thing called hunger and food and self. I found it very useful. Peoples at one retreat house I was out had a truly exceptional feast of multiple vegan foods when I was there. As they thought I was only dieting they had no problem with doing that. It was extreamly useful to watch the feast and others participating with much happiness in the feast, about three days or so into my fast. I have actually never had such a exceptional circumstance. Wonderful...but part of the wonder was keeping the thing private. I personally have never felt sick from fast however, and many times I have fasted. As a practical matter it is also very useful, as you now know you can go for quite some time at least five days or so, and I suspect much longer, without any problem.

As to pain.....that is also very useful. It is the same general idea. I again claim no accomplishment whatsoever, I am the basest of persons, but when pain is watched in this fashion it seems to disappear as does hunger watched in this same fashion. I have not had occasion to watch great pain as if a leg was torn off but with pains I have watched, that thing does seem to disappear. I in fact have bad teeth, and take the opportunity of having caps and such, fillings put on with no pain meds of any sort to watch these things in a controlled environment. Which makes dentists very sad but I find most beneficial for this purpose. The watching seems to remove the need for such things. But as I say I have not had a leg torn off or some such that may be different,I don't know. You simply cannot convince dentists you do not feel the pain they seem to be causeing. If I could fool them somehow I certainly would.

My guess is all these things sickness pain suffering are the same and if watched in that fashion they all disappear. Death I suspect is the same as well.

Anyway it is quite wonderful to engage the study of mind to my opinion in this fashion. I in fact are quite inspired writing about this and may engage in another retreat shortly to endeavor in this thing again. I will be on a diet. Or perhaps I will engage cold, that may be quite useful as well. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss it and withstanding my museing on the subject. It is one of my favorites. The interesting nature of watching in this fashion I find quite outweigh any happiness sadness hunger pain or suffering I may have caused to self by creating such circumstance. Fasting as a aside does at times produce a blissful state as well but it passes.

This all however is my personal opinion of a uneducated layperson, so feel free to take it all with a grain of salt. I can possibly explain some of it through Buddhist literature of a particular kind if requested, that kind being no worse nor better than any other kind.

Last edited by ronnewmexico on Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:09 am, edited 2 times in total.

"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.

ronnewmexico wrote:i am going to comment on the technical aspects of these issues, nor into discussion of terms I personally cannot account for, but from a simple laypersons view and a uneducated one at that...

Bliss could be abandoned, but firstly when it presents, as it will from meditational pursuits, it must not be attached to. It may come and go as any other feeling. Maybe it remains, maybe not....it is not significant as are not significant happiness or sad states as well. States they are; not reality or the real. We create circumstance through meditation. Meditation elicits bliss. However does bliss then have any concrete identity as a solid thing we can obtain....no. It remains consequence and as such it has no intrinsic reality. So bliss is seemingly no end all or final product.

Emptiness..a conceptual view of emptiness as with all concepts must be abandoned. Emptiness however pervades our very being and the reality of everything we perceive as exterior. It is therefor a understanding and not a conceptual view. It is part of our awareness. Awareness/emptiness...one is the back side of the other seemingly.

That is but my personal view. I can however point to similiar things versed in Buddhism, that verse such things. And not to state one school of Buddhism is better than any other.

If however you think you must abandon such things by force of will and are aiming for a blissful nirvanic state to reside in forever....that's fine as well.I personally will have none of that, but that's a personal decision, not better nor worse than any other.

This for your consideration, I can explain if requested. But the terms and such....don't know a one, as they are not my concern or aim. So I am no help there.

As to fasting, I'd guess there are many ways of doing this thing. I think there may be some popular book out now on this thing as well, and recently some popular retreats involving it. I personally have utilized fast. I would in retreat however tell peoples I am on a diet, so as not to confuse them. It is a lower tantric method in some schools, and if you fast as spiritual means I suspect some prior to the recent publicity of this thing consider you quite dim. Considered lower tantra, I have found this uneducated layperson to benefit greatly from its employment, though I claim no accomplisment.

I have never once however gotten sick though I have fasted on only water for many days at times. I watch the hunger, what it is that feels the hunger, and have attempted to find any reality whatsoever to this thing called hunger and food and self. I found it very useful. Peoples at one retreat house I was out had a truly exceptional feast of multiple vegan foods when I was there. As they thought I was only dieting they had no problem with doing that. It was extreamly useful to watch the feast and others participating with much happiness in the feast, about three days or so into my fast. I have actually never had such a exceptional circumstance. Wonderful...but part of the wonder was keeping the thing private. I personally have never felt sick from fast however, and many times I have fasted. As a practical matter it is also very useful, as you now know you can go for quite some time at least five days or so, and I suspect much longer, without any problem.

As to pain.....that is also very useful. It is the same general idea. I again claim no accomplishment whatsoever, I am the basest of persons, but when pain is watched in this fashion it seems to disappear as does hunger watched in this same fashion. I have not had occasion to watch great pain as if a leg was torn off but with pains I have watched, that thing does seem to disappear. I in fact have bad teeth, and take the opportunity of having caps and such, fillings put on with no pain meds of any sort to watch these things in a controlled environment. Which makes dentists very sad but I find most beneficial for this purpose. The watching seems to remove the need for such things. But as I say I have not had a leg torn off or some such that may be different,I don't know. You simply cannot convince dentists you do not feel the pain they seem to be causeing. If I could fool them somehow I certainly would.

My guess is all these things sickness pain suffering are the same and if watched in that fashion they all disappear. Death I suspect is the same as well.

Anyway it is quite wonderful to engage the study of mind to my opinion in this fashion. I in fact are quite inspired writing about this and may engage in another retreat shortly to endeavor in this thing again. I will be on a diet. Or perhaps I will engage cold, that may be quite useful as well. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss it and withstanding my museing on the subject. It is one of my favorites. The interesting nature of watching in this fashion I find quite outweigh any happiness sadness hunger pain or suffering I may have caused to self by creating such circumstance. Fasting as a aside does at times produce a blissful state as well but it passes.

This all however is my personal opinion of a uneducated layperson, so feel free to take it all with a grain of salt. I can possibly explain some of it through Buddhist literature of a particular kind if requested, that kind being no worse nor better than any other kind.

TMingyur wrote:"Abandon desire for bliss, for this harms the mind."Take all the sufferings of other beings and give all your happiness.

Actually all this "vajrayana" sayings about "bliss" makes me feel sick. I feel that the small vehicle is more honest in this regard.

But sometimes feeling sick is good because it's a sign that you are purifying some of the bad karmas you accumulated in your past. Feeling sick is often part of doing the Nyungne fasting meditation retreats, for example.

I suppose it would also be possible to take the Zen approach and ask oneself, "Who is it that feels sick now?"

or we take the reasoned approach and recognize that Mahayana teaches altruism whereas the vajrayana laymen in internet forums advocate hedonism

Of course it is "hedonism in disguise". The disguise being nonsensical "emptiness talk".

Jangchup Donden wrote:I'm kind of confused as to what's the problem with bliss?Even the Buddha taught that Nirvana was blissful. It's all over the place

I think you have to distinguish between ordinary bliss--which is impermanent--and the bliss of nirvana--which is permanent. I don't think there's anything wrong with ordinary bliss as long as you see it as the impermanent experience it is and don't become attached to it.

TMingyur wrote:or we take the reasoned approach and recognize that Mahayana teaches altruism whereas the vajrayana laymen in internet forums advocate hedonism

Haha, I agree. Bodhichitta motivation always has to be the heart of everything.

My lama once told me a Lojong saying which went something like this: "If I can benefit other sentient beings more by being healthy, then I will be healthy. If I can benefit other sentient beings more by being sick, then I will be sick. If I can benefit other sentient beings more by living, then I will live. If I can benefit other sentient beings more by dying, then I will die."

Of course, such a saying sounds crazy to most westerners because our culture is largely built upon self-interest (which I won't pretend that I've totally disengaged from).

Someone will now invariably post some sutra stateing the circumstance of nirvana is ultimate bliss, but aside from that which will probably follow...

Some Buddhist thought contends nothing is permanant in that fashion. Bliss is but a consequence as well so it holds no degree of permanance. Though functionally a thing may be permanant, as our consciousness always produces objects to be aware of and the consequence is a continum of consciousness is perceived, a attainment of the circumstance of nivrana may always be characterized by bliss(though I have heard of it described as equaniminty more truly). That does not imply absolute permanance. It is like water being always wet. When water presents it is wet always. But that implies nothing as to the quality of wetness being permanent. There may exist circumstance that does not produce the presence of water.

I mention this as to my personal opinion(as is this entire post)....the consideration of things as having a absolute nature leads to absolutism and eventually a form of theism the ideological extension of absolutism, which is not where things seem to be. So there is no absolute permanent nature to nirvana nor bliss.

Of course your faith may hold a differing view which is fine as well and equal in some respects.

A hedonistic philosophy is a extension of nihilism the other extream view on the spectrum of religious ideology. 180 degrees from absolutism. This is rational for describing Buddhism as the middle way, it rejects the two extreams of nihilism and absolutism. Hedonists essentially discount the karmic effect(effect of action) and its relationship to beings. As in it being a logical point(emptiness is part of everything) but taken to a illogical conclusion....we can then reasonably conclude nothing matters.

Well no..... though everything has empty characteristic conventionally things still exist and beings still suffer. Cause and effect do not cease to exist on the basis of our understanding that the objects produced by circumstance do not have inherant quality about them. Nihilism by logical extension rejects ther existance of the conventional and conventional cause and effect. This is part of the reason some schools emphesize that it is most difficult to consider and meditate upon the nonexistance of things firstly....it leads to nihilism, but rather our focus is upon firstly the nonexistance of self and soul,then perhaps the nonexistance of things, but secondary. It is very hard to consider the nonexistance(empty quality) of things and not fall directly into nihilism. That philosophy is fine and good, on a rational basis, but the consequent result of holding such philosophy and consequent result lead to much much suffering in unfortunate rebirth due to habitual pattern integration, a downward spiral is begun. So Buddhist teachers, to my view, push much more towards absolutism for the novice rather than towards the emptiness characteristic of things. First is developed faith trust devotion compassion...then is considered the empty quality of things not the other way around.

As a aside of sorts these discussions are nothing even remotely new. During the time of the Buddha one school led by one particular teacher held the view that everything could be reduced to a questioning hypothesis. This philosophical stance was rejected by Buddha and Buddhists of the day. Many many philosophical schools existed at the same time 2500 years ago in India, to include schools such as Jainism which approximate Buddhists view of emptiness but with the addition of permanent characteristics to a soul, and the Brahamins which of course held the absolutist view of things. The questioning hypothesis peoples generally held nothing could be determined and all could be subject to inquiry, without resolution thusly the inquiry was the only absolute, which constituted in actuality as form of production, as effect...nihilism, a nihilist view.

In a Tibetan sense this divergence of view may be represented perhaps by the consideration of the Hwashang school of Buddhism (which by logical extension may stem from the contemplative exclusionary meditation of Udraka, but that is conjecture). The Hwashang school held a cosiderable following in Tibet 1200 years ago, and was considered a strictly contemplative branch of Chan Buddhism(not to state that is fact) with logical conclusion of this practice considered to be a form of nihilism, not the middle view(and not to state that is fact). But it shows the rejection of nihilism as Buddhist view regardless. I will not get into the nuances of the issue(Tibet/Chinese nationism perhaps) but generally ideologically that is the consideration.... nihilist view as oppoed to middle way view being not sustainable in logical consideration and debate. The ultimate outcome of this dispute was settled by debate and the victor being chosen by the king of Tibet and decided which direction Buddhism would go in Tibet, a Chinese(considered) or Indian view. I would contend the actuality is probably framed in nationalism and the historical emnity between China and Tibet but I only conjecture. The ultimate outcome was a rejection of what was thought to be a nihilist framed Buddhist philosohy(not to state Chan is in any manner that).It is a story of what transpired not what transpired.

To add to your discussion for consideration. If considered irrelevent disregard I don't care if my writings are entertaining, particularly.

"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.